1 2026:CGHC:7100 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 615 of 2023 Heeralal S/o Sarju Singh Aged About 52 Years Caste Gond, Occupation Government Servant, Peon (Women And Child Development, OfÏce of District Program OfÏcer), Surajpur, District Surajpur, R/o Surajpur, P.S. And Tahsil Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Rohanti Devi W/o Heeralal Aged About 50 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Kot, P.S. Surajpur, Tahsil Ramanunagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order may kindly be set aside and the enhancement of maintenance amount may kindly be rectified reasonably.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.11 10:56:46 +0530 2 maintenance. It was stated in the application dated 25.03.2009 that the marriage between the parties was solemnized many years ago; however, the applicant herein deserted her in the year 2008 and contracted a second marriage, as a result of which she is living separately. It was further stated that the respondent/wife has no means of livelihood, whereas the applicant is working as a Peon in the Women and Child Welfare Department, Baikunthpur, and is also possessed of landed property. Therefore, maintenance to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- per month was sought. 4. The applicant herein denied the allegations and pleaded that the respondent/wife herself left his company and is living separately of her own volition. The applicant tried his level best to bring her back, however, she did not return. It was further pleaded that without the consent of the applicant, the respondent/wife terminated her pregnancy and, as such, she is not entitled to maintenance, as she is residing separately on her own wishes and her parents have sufÏcient sources of income. 5. Learned Magistrate, after taking evidence of the parties, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month towards maintenance vide order dated 18.07.2011. 6. Subsequently, the respondent/wife filed an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance amount to Rs. 10,000/- per month before the Family Court, Surajpur. 7. The said application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. was opposed by the applicant on the ground that at present the respondent/wife has sufÏcient sources of income. She is engaged with a Self-Help Group, from which she is earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. She is also carrying out agricultural operations on the land received by her as her share in her 3 paternal property. The applicant has two school-going children, is residing in a rented house, and also has the responsibility of maintaining his two younger brothers living in the village; therefore, he is unable to pay the enhanced amount of maintenance. 8. The learned Family Court, after recording evidence of the parties, enhanced the maintenance amount and, instead of Rs. 1,500/- per month, awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent/wife vide the impugned order dated 13.03.2023. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law, and circumstances of the case. He submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider that the respondent/wife is living separately of her own volition and, as such, the applicant is not liable to pay the maintenance amount. He submits that learned Family Court failed to consider that the respondent/wife is associated with a Self-Help Group and is earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month. Learned Family Court further failed to consider that the respondent/wife has received a one-fourth share in her paternal property and is carrying out agricultural operations on the said land, from which she is earning a reasonable income. He also submits that the applicant has the responsibility of maintaining his two school-going children as well as his two younger brothers residing in the village and, as such, is not in a position to pay the enhanced amount of maintenance. The learned Family Court ought to have considered the fact that the applicant has several liabilities and is barely managing his own expenses. The impugned order enhancing the maintenance amount to Rs. 5,000/- per month is not in accordance with law and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment 4 of the learned Family Court. 11. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after duly considering the pleadings, documents, and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application filed under Section 127 of the CrPC by the respondent. The learned Family Court, upon appreciation of the material available on record, enhanced the maintenance from Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 5000/-to the respondent. 12. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 13. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek